Replies

The church analogy has nothing to do with this. There isn’t a consitutional provision requiring that someone be born a certain religion. I will say however that Chritianity is somewhat unique in that lineage doesn’t determine religious identity. For Jews and Muslims, if you are born a Muslim, you will die a Muslim, it doesn’t matter what you do in the interim, and any children born to either the father (Islam) or the mother (Judaism) is Muslim or Jewish respectively, again, regardless of what the parent may or may not have done before or after the child was born.

But back to the point, according to your theory it does matter how Canada treats my wife’s U.S. citizenship, because if Canada continues to recognize her as a citizen, and thus my son also as a citizen, then he would not be eligible, but if they don’t recognize her as a citizen, and thus not my son either, then he would have been born owing no foreign allegiance, and would be eligible. This is why that can’t be the rule, otherwise Canada gets to determine who’s eligible to be President of the U.S.

The church analogy is just that ... an analogy. I thought it might help you understand the relationship between governing authorities. If it doesn't skip it. But the analogy is accurate.

according to your theory it does matter how Canada treats my wife’s U.S. citizenship, because if Canada continues to recognize her as a citizen, and thus my son also as a citizen, then he would not be eligible, but if they don’t recognize her as a citizen, and thus not my son either, then he would have been born owing no foreign allegiance, and would be eligible. This is why that can’t be the rule, otherwise Canada gets to determine who’s eligible to be President of the U.S.

Almost. You are almost there. You commented that I believe Canada has a say in the citizenship status within U.S. borders. That is not at all correct. Reread my posts. I have consistently stated that Canada has no influence inside U.S. borders. Canada's rights of legislation extend no further than Canada's borders. What Canada says and does on the topic is meaningless inside the U.S. I completely agree that Canada does NOT get to determine who is eligible to be POTUS.

What is not meaningless is what you and your spouse say and do. As such, when your spouse naturalized, took the U.S. oath renouncing all allegiance to her nation of origin, immigrated in country, pursued no further benefits and fulfilled no further duties as a citizen of her nation of origin thus maintaining a pure allegiance to the United States, and thereafter gave birth within the jurisdiction of the United States to a child also parented by a fellow U.S. citizen, it stands to reason she gave birth to nothing other than a natural born citizen. Canada might claim the child. But they don't get a say inside U.S. borders.

My theory is simply that "every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen." More importantly it was Rep John Bingham's theory at the time he authored the 14th Amendment. But when he stated it 150+ years ago, he stated it not as theory but authoritatively as fact. And when he stated it as fact, none disputed him because it was common knowledge. In contemporary times many have abandoned common sense protections like this because of triggered liberals with their hurt sensitivities. It's past time we manned-up again.